https://rumble.com/v4ng5sr-njf-on-marriage.html
5 min clip
summary:
- you can't take risks
- you can't trade your comfort for resources toward a greater goal
- women have absolute legal power
- women have no obligations or duties in how they behave
- most of the masculinity exhibited by married men is performative and trivial
- every mechanism to control a wife's behavior is seen as "abuse"
Even knowing all of this, and generally agreeing with it, I still think the costs and sacrifices are worth it as long as you go in for the purposes of having children. Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
Why is it retarded? Sustainment of the population is at least three children per couple. If you aren't managing at least one kid, then your existence equates to nothing more than the consumption of resources.
The only people who truly manage to make significant contributions to society that justify their lives, are people who can contribute enormously to technology or else save hundreds of lives. Perhaps Tesla is an exaggeration but frankly for most people it's all or nothing, especially in our society of filler jobs and consumption industries.
If you can't see how there are plenty of other ways to be a net positive for society, I'm not sure how to get it through to you. People who produce food, build things, maintain critical infrastructures of a whole host of industries, the list goes on.
Sure, there are plenty of useless paper pushing jobs that probably shouldn't exist and don't really contribute much. But the notion that you have to be a super genius to contribute positively is bizarre, and that's coming from someone who is very adamant that people should strive to have kids despite the societal deck being steeply stacked against men.
Tell me some then. Afterwards we can discuss the sheer amount of resources that a single human life costs over their lifetime, resources that one person likely doesn't live up to on their own over their lifetime.
This seems like a futile endeavor because the concept itself is self evident even when speaking generally, but I'll humor you.
Thinking of a friend of mine who is giga based and is a teacher. Given that he works amongst commie scum, if even a few of the thousands of students he teaches over his career is positively influenced, assuming the others aren't influenced negatively, then he's done his part.
Spoken like a commie. Resources that, for the intents and purposes of this discussion, are not finite and of which more can be produced.
Oh hardly. Spoken like an economist. Economics is subtractive, because resources are finite, if in some cases expandable. Prior to massive automation advances, farming for example, a much larger proportion of the population had to be positive contributors to society in order to even stay alive.
That is no longer the case. Now less than a percentage of the population produces food for example.
It's just a statistical fact. Most people are useless eaters. 90% of more of people on this continent do nothing but consume in their lifetimes.
This is the precise opposite of communism, which stipulates that you're entitled to sustenance, housing and a comfortable lifestyle solely by virtue of being alive.
Your friend, you say if he positively influenced a handful of children as a teacher that he's done his part. Morally speaking I'd agree, but we're talking about economics. Because by having three children he'd have done the same in any other profession to boot, while contributing more positively. Teachers are especially of negative economic value(almost as much as office workers), their positive contributions largely theoretical while their profession on the whole constantly claims themselves indespensible.
This kind of thing is important to understand, because the collapse of the Clown World empire currently propped up by the parasite infested United States is fast approaching. And that collapse will herald mass death on an unimaginable scale.
Who is or is not useful may, in our lifetimes, become a literal matter of life and death.